Does the truth always need to get out?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
There is absolutely no excuse for fake science.

Sure there is -- if the real science has an overwhelming potential to cause a great deal of harm, then the fake science wins out. If I accidentally developed a cheap easily mass-produced weapon with an incredible destructive potential, then you'd better believe that I'd probably make myself forget what I'd developed. The whole purpose of science is to benefit mankind -- if a scientific discovery will, on the contrary, harm mankind, then bury the ****er.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is an *assumption*, not a scientific lie.

It's treated like a fact.

[Shi Huangdi]

Well, it seems as though Comrade Tribune and I are on the same side of this issue. That means I must be wrong. I guess in such a case Stefu presented the truth shouldn't be published.

[loinburger]

Shi's switching sides? Dammit, now I've got to switch sides...

Seriously, though, the benefits may outweigh the harm in a hypothetical like this, but I doubt it (particularly since the benefits would almost certainly be related to genetic testing/engineering, which is Satan's work...)

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by loinburger
If I accidentally developed a cheap easily mass-produced weapon with an incredible destructive potential, then you'd better believe that I'd probably make myself forget what I'd developed.

1) Sooner or later, somebody else would develop it.

2) You are talking about an invention, not a discovery. Makes a difference.

[Comrade Tribune]

And, btw, think about the implications: In our hypothetical scenario, someone else might come up with the truth. That person may be not a racist, just someone believing in calling the shots as he sees them.

Now, this person is going to be called a crook, for the very bad reasons mentioned in this thread. Suppose you *know* that what he says is true, by keeping silent you are acting contrarily to civic virtue, whatever you believe you are doing.

The only ones who I would expect to act like that are 1) people who haven´t thought it through, 2) cowards, 3) those who 'wouldn´t recognize civic virtue if it bites their ass' (Starship Troopers).

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
1) Sooner or later, somebody else would develop it.

That's hardly a given, nor is it an excuse even if it were a given. The fact that Person X is just going to die sooner or later anyway is not a sufficient justification for me to help him/her let loose his/her moral coil. The assumption that mankind is eventually going to develop Weapon X anyway is no excuse for me to develop Weapon X now.

2) You are talking about an invention, not a discovery. Makes a difference.

1. How does it make a difference?
2. Since we're talking hypotheticals anyway, assume that this weapon is simply the intuitive utilization of a scientific discovery, e.g. "According to the Semi-Implicit Zweiben-Quantized Theory of Advanced Slurmification, if you cook baking powder, polyester, and cherry soda in a microwave for thirty seconds and mix the contents with cow pies then you will create a substance with the destructive force of a 20-megaton nuke."

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
And, btw, think about the implications
...
by keeping silent you are acting contrarily to civic virtue, whatever you believe you are doing.

Neat -- so, from our answers to one hypothetical, you're able to infallibly extrapolate everybody's answers to a different hypothetical, and thus conclude that those who disagree with you lack civic virtue? IIRC, that's called a Strawman.

Deal with our answers to the hypothetical as provided -- don't start adding more scientists and pulling extrapolations out of thin air.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by loinburger
The assumption that mankind is eventually going to develop Weapon X anyway is no excuse for me to develop Weapon X now.

In fact there is. You don´t want that weapon to accidentally fall into the hands of Genghis Khan.

Originally posted by loinburger

1. How does it make a difference?

See my post directly above yours.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
In fact there is. You don´t want that weapon to accidentally fall into the hands of Genghis Khan.

And the best way to prevent this is to publish my results?

See my post directly above yours.

That post fails to answer my question. It doesn't even address my question.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by loinburger
Deal with our answers to the hypothetical as provided -- don't start adding more scientists and pulling extrapolations out of thin air.

Somebody *would* come up with it. This is a reasonable assumption, not a strawman.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by loinburger
That post fails to answer my question.

Only because you fail to understand my point.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Somebody *would* come up with it. This is a reasonable assumption, not a strawman.

1. This is not a reasonable assumption. Scientific discoveries are made in leaps and bounds -- if one particular leap isn't made, then an alternate leap usually takes its place, and progress continues independently of the missed leap.
2. Your extrapolation was in assuming what answers would be given to your new hypothetical based on the answers to the given hypothetical. This was a strawman.

[Ted Striker]

Whatcho talking about Willis?!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Only because you fail to understand my point.

Nowhere in that post did you draw the distinction between an "invention" and a "discovery." You didn't even use the term "invention" except in your bald assertion that inventions and discoveries are different.